The View from Here: 400 years after its publication, LDS Church sticks with King James Bible

Comments

A great article, but same sad situation in comments. Some LDS wishing to discuss
their faith, and some anti-Mormons pretending they aren't anti-Mormons, here to
attack the beliefs of others. The purpose of scripture isn't to prove anything,
but to enlighten.

Still, these fulltime critics have been given many
evidences and references showing the BoM, JST, and PoPG are miraculous, and
critical claims support that. Their responses are typically to simply move to
another article, or disregard, or deny without thought or examination.

I'm not sure, but it seems they are only hoping to catch someone who doesn't
know much and lead them astray. Maybe this is why the last thing they want is
for you to know they are professional anti-Mormons, but clearly, anyone reading
DN comments knows what they are doing here.

I love them, but can't
help but wonder if they don't have anything better to do?

Oh, and @pickle, if you wish to help me make better comments perhaps you could
show which references i gave that you looked into and why they didn't support
the claim...luvya heaps!!! : )

terra novaPark City, UT

March 12, 2011 8:57 p.m.

The KJV is a beautiful translation. However, it is a misunderstanding to think
that the use of "thou and thine" is is more formal than the common
modern English counterparts: "you" and "yours." English
used at the time of the KJV's completion included an informal speech pattern
used between families and friends. To address a friend WITHOUT using informal
forms (like "thee," or "thou") put distance "betwixt
thee and thy friends." Read the dedication page in the KJV, it speaks to
King James in the plural (using you and yours); as opposed to "thy
majesty" you get "your majesties."

In modern
English, the use of informal forms have nearly disappeared. Many assume that
using "thee" or "thou" was reserved for those of the highest
rank or privilege in society.

Not true.

It was, in
fact, just the opposite. The friendliest and most informal way to address each
other involved using language many now consider off-putting and archaic.

Nevertheless, the KJV is a beautiful translation. It harmonizes well
with the Book of Mormon. But even Joseph worked with Greek and Hebrew to add to
his spiritual understanding of scripture. Perhaps we could too... humbly,
gracefully and righteously.

SerenityManti, UT

March 12, 2011 5:37 p.m.

Sharrona: 1.Pure evil is the evil one in action. Evil, in itself has a life of
its own and it spreads among people like plague. It is instigated by the evil
one. When the Savior prayed for us to be delivered from evil, He meant exactly
that. I also add Please Father, deliver us from evil

2. For they
shall be filled with the Holy Ghost. The beatitudes were on a spiritual plane,
not carnal. Joseph Smith did not misunderstand the text. Jesus was speaking of
the Gospel. Food does not satisfy a hunger after righteousness, only the
spiritual fulfillment of the word of the Lord can satisfy that hunger.

3, Bethabara and Bethany were the same place. But I might add this is not the
same Bethany where Lazarus lived.

4. Alma wrote this almost 600
years after they left Jerusalem. He saying that the Lord will be born in the
land of their forefathers who were from Jerusalem.

I love the KJV of
the Scriptures. They speak to me with the clarity of the voice of God. People
are looking hear and there, trying to find Him, but they change the Scriptures
which most represent Him.

sharronalayton, Ut

March 12, 2011 3:30 p.m.

Jack Pack Lambert said, Most areas where the JST differs from the KJV are
delineated in the footnotes or appendix sections of the LDS Edition of the
Scriptures. Huh?The Johannes comma (1 John 5:7,) crept into the Latin text
of the New Testament during the Middle Ages around (11th or 12th), " Modern
Bible translations exclude it:NIV),NASB),(ESV),(NRSV),or relegate it to the
footnotes.Somehow within the one God there exist three distinct Persons
(Matt 28:19). Tertullian (c. 155-220) coined the term "Trinity" to
describe this early Christian belief that God is a "tri-unity". And in
(Nicea 325 A. D ) both prior to the addition in the middle ages. Check your
LDS edition for footnotes that support the Johanine Comma. One of several
examples like Mark 16:9-20,JS did not know.Modern Scholarship has nothing
to hide.

hairypatchesHurricane, UT

March 12, 2011 2:09 p.m.

I wish that some day we as Latter Day Saints can come to grips with the idea
that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in some of the translations. Look at the
title page of the B of M for instance, the last line reads "if there are
errors they are the errors of men". Why can't we admit that with over 3500
variants from the original B of M that maybe the JST & the KJ versions of
the bible might need a little help too like putting them into modern American
English which is our language after all. Not the old English of King James. We
do it for all the other languages of the world, but we refuse to do it for
ourselves? Interesting to me.....

hairypatchesHurricane, UT

March 12, 2011 2:08 p.m.

There is only one place in the entire KJV of the Bible where it talks about the
Trinity Doctrine of the Father, Word and Holy Spirit being one, This is known by
scholars as the Johanine Comma found in 1 John 5:7-8. If you look at any of the
early greek translations of the NT those verses are not there. It is however in
the KJV & the JST. To the Catholics credit they have changed those verses
in "The New American Bible" to read more true to the earliest texts.
Those verses were obviously added by some good Latin scribe along the way after
the Nicene Creed in 325CE.

John Pack Lambert of MichiganYpsilanti, MI

March 12, 2011 11:33 a.m.

Most areas where the JST differs from the KJV are delineated in the footnotes or
appendix sections of the LDS Edition of the Scriptures. Others are found in the
Book of Moses and JST Matthew both in the Pearl of Great Price.

There
are a few variations that were not included in the footnotes, and there are some
who feel that some of these should have been included.

The KJV is a
good translation, but definantly not perfect. However nothing made by man is
perfect. The Book of Mormon is not perfect in translation nor in original form.
We are told not to condemn it because of the mistakes of men that appear in
it.

God speaks to us in our own language. However language changes,
and language varies based on location, class, educational background and other
factors. As long as we are trying to understand God's plan in our flawed
language we will have to be weary of possible problems.

OC SurferRancho Santa Margarita, CA

March 12, 2011 5:47 a.m.

In Japan, the LDS Church uses the Colloquial Japan Bible Society of the Bible
which was directly translated from the original Greek bible. In many cases, the
verses in Japanese from the Japanese Bible Society Bible, are more closer in
meaning to the English Joseph Smith translation than it is to the English King
James Version. Interesting...

sharronalayton, Ut

March 11, 2011 6:06 p.m.

Bill in Nebrsaka,1."And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil (3Nephi 13:12) compare,1. And lead us not into temptation, but
deliver us from evil (Mt 6:13& 6:14 JST)"The KJV renders its
'deliver us from evil,'(force),Dan B. Wallace, Should be, the evil one (MT 6:13
NIV). Poor KJV Translation.

2. And blessed are all they who do
hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be* filled. added [with
the Holy Ghost] ?(3Nephi 12:6) compare2. Blessed are they which do hunger
and thirst for righteousness for they shall be *filled. (Mt 5:6 KJV)
Blessed are they who hunger and thirsts for righteousness for they will be
satisfied.(Mt 5:6 NIV)*Filled or, satisfied (chortazo, 5526) to fill or
be satisfied with food not the Holy Ghost. JS misunderstood the text.

For God so loved us, that He sent His Son to us - and He did visit His people,
even on the other continents.The LDS Church is not there to prove this,
because the Holy Ghost bears witness to You and me of that.

As to the
Bible translations... In my part of the world we use the most recent Lutheran
translation... sadly it has nothing to do with Martin Luther any more.I
hate to read a book (not Bible anymore) where one of my favorite scripture is
mistranslated... word TREASURE is changed to PLENTIFUL STORAGE... I never
consider the Gospel of Jesus Christ as a plentiful storage, but rather the
TREASURE that lights my life.

Bill in NebraskaMaryville, MO

March 11, 2011 12:15 p.m.

To Megan and Skeptin: What you are saying is not correct. The Church is not
even trying to authenticate the Book of Mormon. That is a falicy that critics
outside the Church is using. It is individual members who are trying to
authenticate it, not the Church itself.

Secondly, the Church has as
has been mentioned the entire Joseph Smith translation is in the LDS version of
the KJV. Those outside the Church do not realize this.

Also it is
NOT Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon. He did not write the Book of Mormon. To
know for sure one must take seriously the challenge that Moroni has given. In
fact, all of the Leaders of the Church will tell you that BOM geography IS NOT
important. It is totally secondary to the revelations received via the Holy
Ghost.

Too many people are trying to insinuate things that are not
true. Next year the entire Sunday School lessons will be on the Book of Mormon.
The Church in fact in all its lessons utitlize the Book of Mormon more than the
Bible in its teachings. The Bible is used more in support of the Book of
Mormon.

skepticPhoenix, AZ

March 11, 2011 11:55 a.m.

Since the Mormon church can not authenticate the history of Joseph Smith's Book
of Mormon it would be imprudent for the church to try to defend Joseph Smith's
editing of the Bible and encounter further world persiflage.

BYRWoods Cross, UT

March 11, 2011 10:46 a.m.

I understand but no longer use the KJV for personal use. In Church, yes, so we
are all on the same page, but I find the NET far more informative and the NET
footnotes, with modern scholarship is very valuable. For example, try reading
Isaiah in the KJV, then the NET then in the BoM. Read all the footnotes along
the way. It helped me to understand what Isaiah was writing about and why Nephi
wanted to include Isaiah in his record.

RichDaddyLogan, UT

March 11, 2011 8:54 a.m.

I love the almost poetic language of the KJV. I have read other versions and it
somehow has a different feel to me. It is somehow more comfortable and less
casual. I guess it inspires reverence. Just one man's opinion.

Northern LightsLouisville, KY

March 11, 2011 8:22 a.m.

Megen:

There are significant portions of the Joseph Smith Translation
included in the footnotes of the LDS edition of the KJV of the Bible. With
this, I don't see a practical need to publish anything different at the
moment.

I'm grateful for those who produced the KJV of the Bible
using such lovely prose and I'm also grateful for Joseph Smith contributions. I
believe that both can be trusted.

megenTruth or Consequences, NM

March 11, 2011 7:40 a.m.

I wonder why the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible isn't used. If Smith was
the prophet of the restoration, why isn't his translation acceptable? Is the
KJV used to minimize the differences between the LDS and evangelicals? Or is
the KJV more accurate? How could it be if it wasn't translated by prophets?